Talk:Duck Dynasty/Archive 3

Sock of Blocked User
Much of the above may be disregarded as edits by an established sock of a banned user, and could even be removed as such, but I am to lazy to strike through walls of text. With any luck, the days of tendentious POV pushing by that sock are over. Collect (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Collect - hopefully this is the end of the never-ending contentious Talk dialogue and we can return to polite dialogue and concensus building. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

RfC
is an edit being made which contains material which might be UNDUE or violative of WP:BLP and where no consensus was obtained on the article talk page. 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I consider the fact that the reason given is that it is "sourced" is insufficient to override the singular lack of any WP:CONSENSUS in the article at hand for the material, that it contains material which fails WP:NPOV and which is WP:UNDUE. On my UT page, an editor says the material was "never discussed" which I demur on, and note that some discussion is on the current article talk page, and has been discussed on other pages as well. shows an RfC which specifically stated that the "black comments" should not be in any BLP. Collect (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's good that this editor is now talking first, and as I have stated these sweeping changes have never been discussed and they know it. Removing the entire black comments paragraph is wildly offensive and in violation of NPOV. Removing reliable sources on a controversy also is a bad idea. This same content has been whitewashed off the BLP article, which naturally has higher threshold for inclusion, but more troubling had enough editors willing to block most all criticism from the article. This content in this biography is essentially a quote farm espousing Robertson's beliefs, minus most of the criticism. Meanwhile this article has been remarkably stable and the same content being axed here has been here the entire time. A separate article just about the controversy has been created but then merged, I think against consensus, and is under talks for being reestablished. Once done this article could have just a summary, which would still include the criticism but perhaps not all the self-serving quotes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for the sideways remark -- but you already took part in the RfC where this precise material was discussed with the result: There is a clear consensus, that these comments shouldn't be included. Users supporting inclusion either didn't give any rationale or just vaguely waving with the WP:NPOV policy. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)   I trust this refreshes your recollection from a week ago? Collect (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted above, that was on a different article. That same content you want to remove is not only well-sourced but has been in this article from the beginning. There remains no good reason to remove it now, that would be violating NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- a BLP violation remains a BLP violation no matter what article it is in nor how long the violation has stood.  Your argument here is not based on any Wikipedia policy at all.   And NPOV does not have any exception that says "BLP violations don't count, nor does consensus count."  Cheers. `Collect (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, repeating BLP does not magically turn any content issue into a BLP one. And why has this egregious violation gone mysteriously unnoticed by everyone here for several months? Possible because there is no BLP violation here. That might have worked at the last RfC but I hope commenters here are wiser. And I think NPOV is a policy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

*This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. It appears to be that Sportfan5000 is on of the few "voices in the wilderness" on all these threads while the rest have weighed in for trimming this section - with this BLP issue being just the most recent. I'm not suggesting that it should be deleted entirely, although that appears to be a solution of the BLP violation, but I've been pretty strong over and over that section is too long and clearly represents undue weight on this one issue. Note: this has nothing to do with white-washing or censorship (so don't even start). One glance and the threads above will show I'm not the only one that supports this. This issue needs to be put to rest once and for all as its been MONTHS of rehashing the exact same info. Ckruschke (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke Completely off-topic. My fault for not properly reading issue. Ckruschke (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Support edit by Collect, a BLP violation is a violation and should be removed immediately whether it's been there 5 years or 2 says. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how this is in any way a BLP violation? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the stand alone article on their notable controversy was specifically to address the concern, not of any BLP violation, which I question, but am open to understanding if one actually exists, but how to best condense the material and I am still looking for reliable sources to lead the way and report on impact to the show and other effects. If we have a stand alone article, there is no reason a summary here would not be appropriate. What we have with these efforts is to remove content, which is causing NPOV errors, and presenting only certain, favorable aspects, of the incidents. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I may be mistaken but this RfC is the first instance of discussing if Robertson's black comments should be removed entirely has taken place on this page, to suggest otherwise is not helpful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- there was an RfC in which you participated. There was a consensus there.  We do not forumshop at every article to rehash what was already settled.  Your posting below of that material is now redacted as required by WP:BLP ... if it is a violation on one page, it is a violation on every page.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These concerns have already been refuted and addressed two or three times elsewhere, the section above this one gives an overview. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(WP:BLP violation per RfC removed) One ought not add material deemed removable in a very recent RfC in which you participated and then repeatedly add it to a directly related BLP on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The bulk of the coverage should be in the biography of the individual who made the comments, with a reference to it on the series page. The coverage of this interview and reaction to it should be trimmed so as not to be more than 1/3 of the biography body text, for purposes of balance. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it has been edit warred out of the BLP, so this is the only place for this notable controversy, which, was always reported as a part of the series rather than just on that person, as the patriarch of the family, it makes sense that his actions are seen as synonymous with the reality show about his business and family. I'm still hoping a stand alone article solely about the controversy itself can be recreated as I think it would address all the concerns. Then only a summary would be needed at either the BLP or this series article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was removed via an RfC, to say it was edit warred out is disingenuous. As it is specific to Robertson and not this article I fail to see how this is a more appropriate area.  Arzel (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In an atmosphere of edit warring out all unflattering and notable criticism, it was also removed. The content was specific to both Robertson, as the star and patriarch of the family which this show is about. Reliable sources cite the connection to the show. If they didn't, most likely none of this would be here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that all unflattering and notable criticism has been "edit warred" out of the article, yet this is still in both articles. Granted, probably not as much as you would like, but this has been discussed at length.  Arzel (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Content in dispute

 * ''Note:this content has been in the article since December 2013'

"Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive". Robertson said: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." In response, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wrote a joint letter to A&E calling Robertson's remarks dangerous and inaccurate.  Jesse Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has "demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel" over the issue, and, together with GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on hiatus. Dan Savage opined that he felt that Robertson's comments about African-Americans under Jim Crow laws were "much more offensive", but because in American culture issues of sex are generally discussed more than issues of race, his comments about race would be discussed far less, in favor of issues about gay sexuality."


 * references
 * ‘Duck Dynasty’ star to return after anti-gay outrage
 * 'Duck Dynasty Debate", CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, December 19, 2013.
 * Dan Savage: Phil Robertson's Racism is Much More Offensive Than His Anti-gay Comments – VIDEO
 * 'Duck Dynasty' star's comments lead to new skirmish in America's culture wars
 * 'Duck Dynasty Debate", CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, December 19, 2013.
 * Dan Savage: Phil Robertson's Racism is Much More Offensive Than His Anti-gay Comments – VIDEO
 * 'Duck Dynasty' star's comments lead to new skirmish in America's culture wars
 * 'Duck Dynasty Debate", CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, December 19, 2013.
 * Dan Savage: Phil Robertson's Racism is Much More Offensive Than His Anti-gay Comments – VIDEO
 * 'Duck Dynasty' star's comments lead to new skirmish in America's culture wars
 * 'Duck Dynasty' star's comments lead to new skirmish in America's culture wars

This content has nothing to do with duck dynasty... had nothing to do with his suspension.. had nothing to do with his reinstatement... had no effect on his career... it's a context free sound bite that has been used to push a point of view.. for all we know he could've been asked was being godly the key to happiness? How would it violate npov to not include an off topic quote? It would seen that inclusion of such a that had nothing to do with the show would violate npov Nickmxp (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection to the show was made by all those reliable sources who cited the Duck Dynasty star's controversial remarks. Had robertson not had a mega-hit show, it's likely this wouldn't have been reported at all. But it was, and talked about across national and international news sources. Robertson, as the patriarch of the family, also serves as the defacto voice of the show, and his comments were attributed as such. The series is about his family, including what they believe. His public comments given in a for-the-public interview are a part of the narrative. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * actually Willie is the voice of the show...although duck dynasty is mentioned, this content has nothing at all to do with the show... it would be like putting critisms of Obama on the democratic party article... unless it had some kind of impact on the democratic party then it's inclusion is undue...under this logic we could also add robertsons comments to the GQ wikipedia article.. after all GQ is mentioned in all those sources as well and if it hadn't been for the GQ interview then the controversy would've never happened...this is one of the resons I agreed a seperate article should be written.. as this content is really only relevant to the topic of the controversy itself.. but I'm not against including this content on wikipedia.. I'm just against including it in the wrong article...it would be like referencing the speeches where he passionately preached against racism in the casts section of the duck dynasty show.... it's not relevant to the show..it's inclusion would be undue...Nickmxp (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick's point is well taken. I agree with his assessment. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Phil Robertson's notability is directly tied to things he says, and he is the patriarch of the family, controls the business. The show wouldn't have been created without him. All the controversy cited Duck Dynasty's star, and characterized it as a Duck Dynasty controversy. Phil was interviewed because of the show, and the controversy was focussed at the show to get it cancelled, and at the network. If everything was targeted as boycott of the family's duck call business, and the effort was to have him removed from the duck call company then the controversy would be on that article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Willie is the CEO.of the business... he is also the narrator of the show.. and unlike Phil Willie is in every episode...the controversy was mainly focused on Phil Robertson and an article in GQ... yes people called on the show to do something, they also called on the sponsors to do something... it only becomes relevant to the show if the those statements did something notable, good or bad, to the show... and that relevance has yet to have been demonstrated.. the only rationale for inclusion here is that it didn't make it somewhere else... and that's not a valid rationale Nickmxp (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By this logic there should no mention of this international controversy at all, right? I don't think so. Phil is synonymous with the show, and the controversy revolved around him being a part of the show, and he did the interview because he was a star of the show. Phil is the family patriarch and creator of the Duck Commander duck call, founder of the Duck Commander Company. At the end of each episode, the family is shown at the dining table, with Phil praying over the meal. Let's not pretend that his comments were in a vacuum and that the controversy wasn't square on the show itself. It was, the show, its star, its network, and the shows sponsors. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um --- I fear you are well past being tendentious here.   An RfC at the BLP most directly involved had a consensus not to include all the additional stuff you want here.  At the appropriate noticeboards you have been informed that you were forum shopping.  Now I suggest you follow what WP:CONSENSUS says:  pull back, have a cup of tea, and don't try prolonging the useless discussions any further.  You can try again in just over five months at Phil Robertson but I would not suggest you hold your breath.  In short --- have a cup of tea, take a break from all of this, and relax.  This is not the most important thing in the entire world for you to fret about.  That you abhor people saying prayers at meals has '''absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia articles and BLPs are written.  Collect (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do enjoy reading your reinterpretations of facts, and further accusations. Your edit summary falsely states so what if you abhor people saying prayers at meals, where did any state that at all? No where. I stated a fact from the article, so please ratchet down the hysterics, fabrications, and insinuations. You're the one beating a forum shopping drum. You're the one making this into a drama episode while everyone else seems content to make their points and not assume the very worst about each other. And the only noticeboard item suggested that that RfC you seem to cling to was flawed, poorly attended, and perhaps needs to be reopened altogether. Additionally the content was similar but not the same. No worries though, I'm sure I'll have to repeat this to you again and again as you whip up new excitement. You do recall that you were the one that falsely accused me, and others of violating BLP until that very same board stated flat out you were mistaken. I think you might want to drink your own tea. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a few episodes in which Willie prays at the end... Nickmxp (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the family is shown at the dining table, with Phil praying over the meal. Let's not pretend that his comments were in a vacuum and that the controversy wasn't square on the show itself is directly from your post. If you did not feel the material represented something of importance to your position, then you ought not have posted it here.   And as for you claim implicitly that I somehow managed to keep people away from the RfC -- ("poorly attended") that is pure ad hom at this point.   And  the only falsehood was when one editor denied that there had been an RfC, and then that it was too far back to apply.  Cheers -- and try for G-d's sake to remember WP:AGF.  Collect (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your continued fabrications of insults is not helping anything. I never claimed you kept people away from the RfC but your actions here have undermined the credibility of this one from the start, perhaps that was your goal. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh?  What is your screed about?  Is it about improving the article?  Not that I can see.   Are you simply handwaving as the RfC is clearly not quite going in your preferred direction?  In that case read WP:CONSENSUS.   Is there an apparent consensus at the other RfC?  A neutral observer sure thinks the consensus was clear, and that 16 February is sufficiently recent.   So please explain -- what result do you want here?  You asked two admins about using Wikipedia processes to undo the prior RfC -- is that what you are asking for?  To rule this RfC as being closed in your own preferred direction despite the fact that it does not appear you have consensus here?  Would you like to simply have everyone who demurs from your position banished from Wikipedia?  What is it that you truly, truly want?   And is your goal a proper one for an article talk page discussion?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral observers have noted that RfC and it's close were sub-optimal at best, and suggested it be re-opened, and the content while similar, was different. I never asked admins to undo the RfC, please stop making things up. Just stop already, you've gone beyond the pale to poison the well. No wonder other editors just walk away from the nonsense. I did no screed, but I leave it to others to see who is laying down screeds here. And i have only been working to improve the article, despite the convenient white-washing of sourced criticism at play here. To pretend the controversy was only about Phil's anti-gay comments is simply false, not true, a lie, dishonest, and violates NPOV. That you are happy and eager to do so despite ongoing objections tells me everything I need to know on this issue. I certainly hope better judgement is shown by other editors here, but I'm not holding my breath. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats -- the close was never called "sub-optimal at best" by neutral observers -- the closer is one of the most neutral people on the entire project, you CANVASSED admins about reversing the close,  your claim that what I wrote is not true, a lie, dishonest etc. is not really going to impress anyone at all, and please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the article and is not a place for rants that other editors "lie" and say untruths -- please stop acting in such a manner.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to have such a poor grasp on the facts let me put a direct quote which you can then spin however you wish, the RfC didn't address the BLP question—a handful of commenters mentioned NPOV/WEIGHT, while most just said "Yes", "No", or provided their (irrelevant) personal viewpoints on the controversy. The overall quality of input at the RfC was quite poor, and the closure was very questionable. And I never canvassed anyone to reverse the RfC close, that's simply untrue and thus is a lie. It's nice that you can spout off various policies and guidelines, it would be better if you actually followed them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you specifically CANVASSED admins about reversing the close of the AfD on the material in question when it was an article - and then merged per the AfD. WP:BLP includes provisions about weight etc. as you ought to well know by now.   Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.  And stop attacking me -- I am only the messenger here -- you appear to regard this as your own private battleground.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've stopped fabricating falsehoods and at lead are coming close to making assumptions of bad faith about events that could be spun your particular way. I asked for advice from three people on the AfD which is think was wrongly closed. The Afd in no way concerned this material which was all in the main article anyway. Please aim your battleground accusation back in the mirror to yourself. You're the one creating a battleground, and stirring up trouble when none is needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was quoting from the Wikipedia article, I guess we have it wrong. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * also I take issue with the statement of white washing... it's not white washing when the majority of off topic points happen to be negative... I also find it odd that the most relevant criticism of GLAAD 'S call for the company to do something that started this whole controversy is completely missing... as it was the primarily reported on reason for a and e s response... how about we include that since it actually had some effect on the decision and remove stuff that had no effect on the decision? Everything thing else is just puffing up the sides of the national debate.. whose bearing on the show is not mentioned at all in this article....Nickmxp (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If cooler heads prevail i have no problem with ensuring the content is accurate. If we censor out his comments about blacks, and the criticism tied to it though, I don't see how that is possible. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * correctedNickmxp (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But long story short... the material has been in the article so long because it was in the infamous gq section that got reverted at ever effort to condense... it's demonstrably undue... it's not neutral because there were people who dismissed the allegations that's not being reported on... like some artist that spent time with Phil and told the story about how he hates the Confederate flag..it uses the phrase "critics say " which I do believe was in that words to avoid article I read awhile back.. but most importantly... it is undue... the reason the homosexual commens are not undue is because it caused a suspension of a cast member... we've got to remember what this article is about... it's not about the gq controversy.. it's about a television show... seriously thinking about trying another shot at a gq article just to quit all these repetitive disputes....put simply... this article talk page says blp rules apply... per blp the burden of inclusion on any removed content falls on the person readding the content... not the person removing content... and no consensus on the addition of any removed content has ever been reached.. so why do we keep adding it back and go in circles?Nickmxp (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Human Rights Campaign, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Jesse Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, are not lightweight organizations. Their involvement, along with GLAAD, show how serious the controversy was. Omitting this content will make Wikipedia disreputable on this issue. I'd prefer that we are are the most accurate in our reporting. I dispute that it's undue at all, We quote Phil's own words for two sentences, and do four more sentences reporting the reactions to his comments. A good article would surely include this content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As this is an article about duck dynasty what stated effect did the human rights campaign, the NAACP, human rights group, the rainbow push coalition have on the show?Nickmxp (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's disingenuous, the controversy was centered on the show and no where else. Those who sought an apology for the homophobic and racist comments appealed to the sponsors of the show, and the corporation that aired it. The vast majority of all news reporting cited this as being linked to the show itself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe this controversy was centered on the show and no where else why did you support its inclusion in the Phil Robertson page?Nickmxp (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't twist logic here, of course, it belongs in the article, if one exists, of the person who made the controversial remarks, as well as the show the controversy was centered on. We don't, and would be illogical, to choose only one or the other. Instead we have a situation where it is being white-washed in both. That violates NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * npov states All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout.... now the only way I can see this controversy being treated in both articles is to show the impact it had on the subjects at hand .... it would violate npov to not do so ..Nickmxp (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, are you suggesting we can only talk about this controversy in one article? I hope not. In any case we are showing how this impacts both Phil and the show, they were subject to media scrutiny internationally for weeks. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

But what stated effect does this content have on this show?Nickmxp (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Among other things, it started a "nationwide debate about tolerance and religion." It brought wide national and international attention to the show. Frankly i must repeat what I've stated not but a few weeks ago, it's too soon to decide what to cut and what will be the lasting impact or effects. Monthly periodicals are certainly going to write about this and will do investigative journalism and report on effects that we can then distill into content. The rush to trim and remove content, started immediately after the controversy started, sure feels like WP:Whitewashing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * but this content has nothing to do with the nation wide debate on tolerance and religion (which is more of a topic itself rather than an impact on a subject) also as for white washing there are many defenses of Robertson that are not included in the article due to bulk of the section already.. but of the defenses cited a lot of relevant statements are also left out.. like the Robertson family statement where they accused a and e of violating Phil's right to religious beliefs, or the statement of Phil's first public appearance makes no mention of comments he made in actual defense... like "all I did was quote the Bible" or "I will not give or back off from my path" or "I didn't think much of it but apparently a lot of other people did"...these very relevant statements are in the sources but omitted in the summaries... but inclusion of everything would give that section undue weight in terms of the topic of the article being on the show... not to mention the very relevant support of millions of fans is missing.. I don't think white washing is much of a concern as it would seem the opposite would be true if this content wasn't ommitted to keep the summary brief Nickmxp (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the overall point that Nickmxp has made. When there are aspects of "the rest of the story" is left untold on this page, saying that we are whitewashing the truth by cutting the content down continues to be somewhat farfetched. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Those are reasons to support a stand alone article, which I have been working on getting restored, where all notable aspects can be covered. That some aspects are omitted and others included is a reason to examine what are the notable aspects and report on them. This is utterly a notable aspect, and should be included, perhaps some of the items you refer to should also be. We do not decide the controversy and we do not decide the truth. We simply report the disagreement in proportion to the support each side has in the relevant sources. I don't think the religious freedom aspect should be omitted either. I also think it's still too soon to remove much of anything as the controversy is so fresh we don't really have the full hindsight to say what the effects are because there hasn't been the time to report them. The entire episode of the show which is the current season, was completed in 2013. So any mention that the family includes, in the show, and they control that content, will not be until this summer or fall unless they make more mention of it on their own. I think we're running afoul of NPOV to remove this aspect, and I think it's too soon to be slicing away. i see no reason to rush things, and it's not like we don't have the paper. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * we also don't get to determine relevance... and the sources show no impact on the show... it would seem improper to include materialand wait to see if impact on show was made before deciding to remove material... this content would seem very relevant in an article about the controversy... but it would also be improper to use the article as a proxy for an article that doesn't get made.. I'll back any attempt at a neutral article on the controversy... but not a second best place to cover the controversy... maybe we should have a simple rfc for a spin off article... gain consensus and use that consensus to validate recreation of a controversy article... Nickmxp (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the best course on reestablishing that article, but it would relieve a lot of issues as some of the content is certainly relevant for the show article (I would say most), and some applies to the biography article (I haven't bothered to look into that article anymore, but he is notable for the things he says and this is certainly right up there). I'll have to read up more to see what path forward makes sense, I've asked for advice but only one person, the closing admin, has responded so far. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, one stopgap measure might be to look at material that people think is borderline, or otherwise given too much space, or not enough, and employ footnotes, like is done at Harvey Milk. It's a featured article with 11 footnotes which offer more details than was deemed appropriate for the main text. I think dismissing Phil's racial comments is a grave error but i do see that a middle ground exists where we could report it in proportion to what reliable sources have done. Meanwhile we could also address perceived deficiencies in underreporting other aspects as has been mentioned. This article is presently mid-length, in my opinion, but could quickly double or triple if an episode guide, even a brief one, was introduced, making this section seem quite small in comparison. Let's find a way forward, and hopefully a stand alone article might also be restored. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the RfC has been hopelessly derailed and is now fully impossible for any disinterested observer to make heads nor tails of, other than to see TLDR stuff littering the discussion. And iterating one's position fifty times on one talk page tends to actually dilute the value others are likely to place on such a position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC was poisoned from the beginning by your actions, which have remained disruptive throughout. Others have made a good faith effort to be collegial and respectful, which you have not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to closer: At this point, only one editor is arguing for inclusion of the edit he made. Six editors oppose the edit. Hope this saves time reading everything supra. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The closer could also take into consideration your deleting the content in question from this very RfC, as well as on the admin noticeboard about this incident. That noticeboard concluded that the last RfC on this content was flawed, and likely should be re-opened. As that RfC was the basis for Collect's deleting content, and edit warring in three venues on, falsely claiming a BLP violation, there is reasonable grounds to also dismiss this entire one or respect that reasonable editors have actually been trying to work through the ongoing issues which include this content, to see the best way forward. This is not a simple issue and need more than flippant accusations, fabrications, and misdirection. The readers deserve a good article and some editors have been willing to address the issues head on, and cooperatively. No reason they cannot continue to do so. Even if poisonings, and disruptions, are a staple of one editor in particular. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be only interested in continuing discussion until you get the result you want. This issue has been discussed, and many simply are tired of the discussion.  Your continued attempts to sway editors does not appear to be working regardless of what you think of the RfC.  The simple fact is that even during the "current event" time of this controversy, this aspect was minor.  Sure, some reporters tried to make it into a big issue, but it still did not take hold and there has been zero long lasting impact.  One could question whether his other comments have any long lasting impact for that matter.  This particular aspect has had zero impact on the show, that much is clear.  This horse has been beaten to death, I think it is time to let it lie.  Arzel (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should let the process unfold without the personal digressions into other editors motives. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Recap: For inclusion of the added material: Sportfan5000  (1)
 * We already had this discussion before. This has nothing to do with the show at all, nor his suspension.  Most of those links aren't reliable sources.  Those that are, are just a small number of random bias writers mislabeling what he said.  There is no reason to include that in this article.   D r e a m Focus  00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the first time this content has been discussed on this page. If you feel any of the sources aren't reliable then let's sort that out. They sure seem to come from reputable sources but perhaps we need to make replacements. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was previously argued on the Phil Robertson page, at Talk:Phil_Robertson, you participating in that, and consensus was to keep it out of that article. It was discussed on a previous section of that talk page also, a lot of arguing for inclusion by the now permanently banned editors Roccodrift and MilesMoney.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was discussed on a different article, and the poorly attended RfC, which my participation was limited to a very short comment, was questionably closed. Roccodrift undoubtably was trying to keep the information out of the article and has disrupted this article as well. But this RfC is the first time this content is being addressed on this article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposed: Arzel, Capitalismojo, Ckruschke, Collect, DreamFocus, Hell In A Bucket, Nickmxp and Stuartyeates (8)

If I missed anyone, please add your names as appropriate. Collect (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of poisoning the process, here we are in the first week of this RfC and you have disrupted it so many times, its sad. If you have nothing constructive to offer then allow those of us who do care the space to find consensus. Your disruption is against consensus-building. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I misrepresent anyone's position from the massive walls of text above? Is there a reason why you shout "poison" and "disruption" and no one echoes your shouts?  Do you consider posting hundreds of lines as the sole person supporting yourself to indicate that you are being silenced in any way?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Cheers - and perhaps have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making my point. Your continued WP:Baiting, incivility, and antagonism is noted. Just because most of the adults choose not to entertain a poorly behaving child doesn't mean that child is in anyway correct for misbehaving. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to closer: No offense to any of the parties, but I agree with Collect - when is this issue going to closed? Its pretty obvious that Sportfan5000 is in the minority. Pretty clear that we are at the WP:DEADHORSE / WP:DRAMA stage... Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * RfC's are usually 30days, as this RfC has been poisoned almost from the start it may seem pointless to allow the regular process to unfold I still trust the community to make good decisions when given accurate information. A recent comment on another article states my basic concern better than i may have presented it, "BLP policy is intended to protect the living subjects of our articles (and indirectly, to protect Wikipedia itself) by not including negative information that is poorly-sourced or lacking sources, it's not intended to exclude all negative information. Such a stance would conflict with WP:NPOV."

For the last time, it's not being omitted because its negative, its being omitted because its not relevant.... if the NAACP released a statement saying "we agree with everything duck dynasty's star Phil Robertson had to say about black people in his GQ interview" and nothing that impacted the show came from that, it would still be considered undue weight....Nickmxp (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As this content is well sourced, and notable, we are violating WP:NPOV by omitting it. Reasonable editors disagree on how to present it, but it needs to be in the article, and presented with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nickmxp on this point. As Ckreuschke says Sport seems drifting deep into DEADHORSE territory. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to closer User:Sportfan5000 was confirmed as a sock of a banned user, and is now indeffed per Checkuser evidence. Collect (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Point?
"Many social conservatives, including his corporate sponsors, some religious groups, and some Republican politicians including Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee supported his right to such opinions."

Who came out against Robertson's *right* to have these opinions? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Presumably those who demanded that sponsors be boycotted and that Robertson be fired or the show cancelled were indicating an opinion that if he holds and articulates certain beliefs that he should be punished for them.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Question
Since Sportfan is blocked, is a formal close still necessary for the previous RfC (now archived)? It's still on the list at WP:AN/RFC, but I'd really rather not have to read through the TLDR if the issue's been resolved.  Sunrise    (talk)  05:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, since there haven't been any responses here, it seems that no further action is required. Someone may still decide to act on the request at ANRFC, or if not, you can make a new request there if it becomes necessary. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  07:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Duck Facts
Hi im new and i will tell u different duck facks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.238.24 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Time Article
I have now removed

from the article twice now since it is stating things not found in the source given. It actually is says 1. it was not an all-time low for the viewers just "a conspicuous low" 2. the 1/3 (2.4 million viewers) drop was from the season 5 finale to the season 6 finale. Both of these things are backed up with our own article that gives the sourced ratings for the episodes. Also even if it is re-written I think at least that it should be in the Controversies section not in the lead. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty Cast: $6.2M Tax Dollars Going to Show
Something needs to be in the article about Louisiana taxpayers subsiding the show. 108.37.68.205 (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other television and media section
It has been suggested that some of what's in this section goes beyond the bounds of the subject matter. Let's discuss.

Most of it is okay, like the Christmas album, etc., but if it's not directly related to the series, it's off-topic trivia (VeggieTales video). Maybe the Dancing With the Stars mention could remain if was expanded to include detail of the Duck Dynasty dance -- where some of them participated. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They got notable media coverage for that musician canceling a talk show appearance because they were on it, and their response. Mentioning what talk shows they have been on to promote their show, is a valid part of this article.  Different ones have done appearances on various other shows, based on getting famous on this one.  Sometimes they are together, or they do things separately.  Being seen as religious, one of them did a voice on the religious cartoon VeggieTales.  That isn't off-topic trivia.  The article is about the show, and all of these things happened because of the show.   D r e a m Focus  15:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The first part is fine, but Si voicing a character on VeggieTales belongs on his page but not here, because it has nothing to do with the show. TV series articles don't list random appearances of the cast members. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most television series articles aren't about a real group of people. This shows how because of the show, they got other jobs they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.  I doubt either of us will convince the other, so hopefully other editors will show up and give their opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  20:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Further reading?
Why are we including a link to the article in the Further Reading section? It has at least one factual inaccuracy, and seems rather strongly biased about the show. What good does it do just to include a link to it? Simple but powerful  07:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Layout
I think it would make more sense to include the table explaining which characters recur after first introducing the characters. It is more important to say who they are than say how often they appear in the show. The order they are listed already suggests who might be more important, the table then helps show it. I know I could boldly change it myself but I mention it here instead and encourage someone else to do it so there is more chance of the change not being reverted. 109.77.26.133 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Final season
This will be the final season of Duck Dynasty. See.  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 03:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Phil Robertson on Race
A very strong reason people were annoyed by Duck Dynasty was Phil Robertson's endorsement of the pre-civil-rights treatment of Blacks.

There should be some mention of that in this article.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field .... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-real-em-duck-dynasty-em-scandal-phil-robertsons-comments-on-race/282538/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.113.146 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)